Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1887-08-19
MILLIONS OF ACRES.
Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Indemni-
ty Land Ordered Restored to the
Public Domain.
Secretary Lamar, in Letter to Sparks,
Gives His Reasons for This
Opinion.
Between 25,000,000 and 10000, 900
Acres viii Thus be, Thrown Open
TO Settlement.
Important Decision


Important Decision
WASHINGTON, Aug, 16.-The secretary
of the interior yesterday revoked the
order of withdrawal of idennity lands for
the benefit of the Atlantic and Pacific
Railroad Company and in a long letter
to the ommissioner of the general land
Office directs that they may be restored
to settlement under the pre-emption and
homestead laws. 1t is stated that between
25,00o,000 and 100000 acres are invoI-
we'd in this decision in the case of the
Atlantic and Pacific company alone. The
order also applies to all of the other
railroads named IN the Secretary's rules
of May % last except the st. Paul Min
neopolis and Manitoba, the Hastings and
Dakota, the st. Paul and Pacific, the st.
Paul and Souix City, the Souix City and
st. Paul and the Winona and st. Peter.
These are still under consideration and
undecided.
The following are some of the main
points of the decision of Secretary Lam
ar on the revocation of withdrawal and
restoration os idemnity lands to settle
stead laws in the case of the Atlantic and
Pacific Railroad Company idemnity land
We're called upon to treat, as an orig
inal proposition the question as to the
legal authorit y of the Secretary to with
draw from the operation of the settle
ment laws lands within the idemnity
limits of said grants 1 should have such
doubts of the existence of any such au-
thnrIty c tn bnua
its exercise. 1t would seem that the
very words of the act, the odd numbered
sections of land hereby granted shall not
be liable to sale or entry or pre- en ption
before or after they are surveyed except
by said company as provided in this act,
of themselves indicate most clearly the
Legislative will that there should not be
withdrawn for the benefit of said COM
pany from sale or entry any other lands
except the odd numbered sections with
in the granted limits as expressly desig-
mated i'll the act. But when the proyis:
ions following this IN the very same SEN
tance is considered, but the provisions
of the act of September, 1S41, granting
pre-emption rights, and the acts amen
datory thereof, and of the act entitled an
act to secure homesteads to actual settler
upon the public domain, approved May
20, 1862 shall be, and the same are here
by extended to all other lands on the line
of said road when surveyed, except those
hereby granted to said company it is
DIFFICULT TO RESIST THE CONCLUSION
that Congress intended that all other
lands except those hereby granted to said
company shall be open to settlement IN
der the pre-emption and homestead laws
and to prohibit the exercise of any dis
cretion in the executive in the matter
of determining what lands shall or shall
not
BE WITHDRAWN.
Waving all question rs to whether or
not said granting act took from the Sec
retary the authority to withdraw said
ldemnity limits from settlement. 1t is
manifest that the said act gave no special
authority or direction to ths Executive
to withdraw said lands and when such
withdrawal was made it was done by vir-
tue of the general authority oveI such
matters possessed by the secretary of the
Interior and in the exercise of his dis
creation; so that were the withdrawal to
be revoked no law would be violated, no
contract broken.
in the position which the law gave it and
deprived of no rights acquired thereun-
der. 1t would yet have its right to select
idemnity for lost lands but in SO doing
it would have no advantages over the
settler as it now has in contravention of
the policy of the government in denial of
the right nquestionably conferred upon
settlers by the land laws of the country
oil l.
the provisions of the granting act under
consideration. Having examined the
act of Congress and ascertained just
what grant or contract was made, turn
to the assertion that no proper oppor-
tunity has been afforded the company to
identify or select either granted or idem-
nifty lands along large part of its line
because of the failure of the government
20 make the necessary surveys. On the
mere statement of this position conceed-
ing its truth it would seem that revoca-
ton of the withdrawal as to the unsurvey-
ed lands would be
AN ACT OF GREAT INJUSTICE
on the part of the executive especially
as the company alleges that it offered
and the fact is conceded to advance
cover the cost of said surveyes, which Of
fer was declined by the Land Office. In
relation to this offer to deposit the cost
of survey have to say that / know of no
la " that authorizes the officers of the
land department to accept or use such
deposit of money for the purpose named
There are laws which authorize special
deposit for the purpose of making sur
at fha Insfanna nf seffiers and sI=n
laws relating to the surveys of private
grants. But there is no law that have
found which authorizes such deposits for
the purpose of surveying lands within
raiIroad limits.
This department, charged with the ad-
ministration of the land laws, acted with
the utmost, if not questionable, liberali-
ty, when it withdrew the land in the in
demnity beta liberality which congress
declined to exhibit. This liberality was
further shown by the fact that the in
demnity lands were withdrawn long be-
fore mile of road was built, and con-
timed withdrawn long after the time pre-
scribed by law for its construction had
expired; and more than liberality is shown
in that during the period of said with
drawaIs the company is allowed to present
and have approved by the local officers
its list of selections without giving pub
lie notice of any kind, whilst the pre-
emption or homestead settler, thoagh his
residence upon and cultivation of his land
has been open and notorious for years, is
compelled to give thirty days notice by
advertisement and posting before he is
allowed to show by proof
A EIoHT TO Els HoxR
so that any one interested may appear
and protest on the day named against
said proof or contest his right. And the
department is not now to be charged
with injustice or ilIIberality because i.
does not propose 20 keep in perpetual
reservation territory of such vast ex-
tent as was Withdrawn for the benefit of
this road. Criticism upon the alleged
shortcomings of the government with
respect to this grant comes with an i'll
grace from this company The people
whom the government represents had
some rights under the grant as well as
the company. That act was not passed,
and that contract made for the sole
bensdt of the company. Mutuality in
benefit was expected and intended; and
mutual obligations we're entered into, and
equity and good conscience would REQ uire